R. v. Reeves, (1985) 70 N.S.R.(2d) 165 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Curran, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 05, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1985), 70 N.S.R.(2d) 165 (ProvCt)

R. v. Reeves (1985), 70 N.S.R.(2d) 165 (ProvCt);

    166 A.P.R. 165

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Reeves

Indexed As: R. v. Reeves

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Curran, P.C.J.

October 28 and November 5, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault and robbery. At trial, two voir dires were held to determine the admissibility of statements made to police by the accused.

On the first voir dire, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court excluded the first two statements from evidence on two grounds; first, the statements resulted from the accused's arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were excluded from evidence to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute and second, the Crown failed to prove the statements were made freely and voluntarily.

On the second voir dire, the court ruled that the third statement was admissible, where it was freely and voluntarily made and the arbitrary detention prior to this statement was not connected to the evidence. Therefore, the third statement could not be excluded under either ss. 24(1) or 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 3141

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Arrest - Right to be taken before court within a reasonable time - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court criticized the police practice of not bringing arrested persons before a justice of the peace until just before the 24 hour period for doing so expired - See paragraphs 19 to 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - On two occasions an accused was arrested and detained for the purpose of questioning - The first time a justice was available, but the police did not bring the accused before him until after the accused gave a statement following eight hours of intensive questioning - The second time the police waited until the 24 hour period for bringing the accused before a justice had almost expired - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that in both instances the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 1 to 7, 19 to 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of - What constitutes - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the police refusal to allow a lawyer's request to see and talk to his client did not infringe the accused's right to counsel unless the accused refused to say anything until he saw his lawyer - The court stated that the right to counsel was the accused's right, not his lawyer's - See paragraph 8.

Civil Rights - Topic 8544

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Appropriate and just remedy - An accused was arbitrarily detained where he was not taken before a justice soon enough - The accused submitted that an appropriate and just remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter was to exclude a statement given to police subsequent to the detention - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that exclusion was not appropriate and just where the statement was given freely and voluntarily, where the accused was remanded into custody when he did appear before the justice and where there was no connection between the denial of the Charter right and the obtaining of the evidence sought to be excluded - See paragraphs 19 to 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - An arbitrarily detained accused was unrelentlessly interrogated by police for eight hours, until he finally gave a statement - The accused insisted that he had nothing to say, but the police repeatedly accused him of guilt and lying - The conduct of the police left the impression that they would not stop questioning the accused until they got a statement - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court excluded the statement from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, because its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 1 to 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 5339.2

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Effect of prior inadmissible statement - An accused gave a statement to police - Two previous statements were later ruled to be inadmissible - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court discussed the effect of the inadmissible statements in determining the admissibility of the last statement - See paragraphs 33 to 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement made freely and voluntarily - An accused gave a statement to police after eight hours of unrelentless questioning, in spite of the accused's insistence that he had nothing to say - The accused was given nothing to eat for the eight hours and had his clothes removed just prior to giving the statement - There was no record of what transpired during the eight hours - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court stated that it had the impression that the police intended to question the accused until they obtained a statement - The court held that the statement was inadmissible, because it was not proved to have been made freely and voluntarily - See paragraphs 11 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dunguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 45 C.R.(3d) 140 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 4].

R. v. Koszulap (1974), 27 C.R.N.S. 236 (Ont. C.A.), agreed with [para. 5].

R. v. Ibrahim (1957), 42 Cr. App. R. 38, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Horvath, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 376; 25 N.R. 537; 7 C.R.(3d) 97; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McCormack (1984), 28 Man.R.(2d) 29; 12 W.C.B. 169 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Owens (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 141 A.P.R. 1 (N.S.C.A.), dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Erickson (1984), 13 C.C.C.(3d) 269 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sybrandy (1983), 9 W.C.B. 329 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Dawson (1984), 13 W.C.B. 292 (Y.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hobbins v. R. (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Kennedy (1981), 10 Man.R.(2d) 104; 6 W.C.B. 420 (Man. C.A.), agreed with [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9, sect. 24(1), sect. 24(2).

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 450 [para. 4]; sect. 454(1) [para. 5]; sect. 457 [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kaufman, The Admissibility of Confessions, pp. 41 [para. 9]; 62 [para. 33]; 63 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Blaine V. Allaby, Q.C., for the prosecution;

Felix A. Cacchione, for the accused.

These voir dires were heard before Curran, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who made the following rulings orally on October 28 and November 5, 1985.